For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
baxlap
B&B is the Stones in transition and at their most experimental. You start with James Brown funk (Hot Stuff), move into reggae (Co, their own kinda funk (Negrita), and cocktail jazz (Melody), in addition to the usual mix of rockers and ballads. While it doesn't always work (can't stand CoB, Melody, and Fool to Cry), I like it a whole lot better than the two that preceded it!
Quote
71Tele
I don't think it has a single song with the emotional depth of "100 Years", "Winter" or "Coming Down Again" from GHS, so I can't see how it's better than that one.
Quote
keefriffhard4life
albums with only 1 tune, does prince's lovesexy count? the cd only had 1 track listed. you had to listen to the album all the way through everytime
Quote
Doxa
This is based on reflection of some themes said in this thread - sorry if this going too OT, or is more SOME GIRLS-oriented than B&B (I hate starting new threads..)
When something new is created, something old needs to be destroyed. I think that is the truth of Pathe Marconi sessions in Paris that produced an era and sound of its own. What is peculiar in BLACK AND BLUE is that it represents the last pre-Pathe marconi-era Stones. There is quite a big change in music and sound between it and SOME GIRLS. Just compare the rocker section: "Hand of Fate" to "When The Whip Comes Down": it is the contemplative, dark, bluesy sound contrast to cheerfulness, joyful attitude.
I've thinking the change in terms of the band being first facing maturity,and then getting out of the hook - back to teenager rock'n'roll. In B&B tehy sound like having realized that they - actually - are old farts belonging to an older genaration of rock stars now (whose 'cultural function' sound a bit odd). There is that "sophistication" Edward talks about; the mid-70's Rolling Stones was musically very sophisticated group. (The term "big fat sound" is also a good one). They might lack some focus and direction but they had the means perfected. That's also the legacy of Mick Taylor years. B&B still more sounds like Taylor-functioning Stones; different guitarists with different results just stunting him. The flirting with new musical styles - funk, reggae - sounds a bit forced to be called convincing. The songs sound goddamn fine, even awesome in their best, but some spark - over-all- is missing.
I have started to think that the "punk challenge" not kicked their asses - like the old "official" rock history says - but it actually helped the Stones. It offered an easy way out of some sort of musical frustration. Jagger found a new persona out of that decadent, hedonist rock god character he had perfected and almost killed to death in 1975/76 tours. He found that ironical boyish Jagger who does not need to grow up ever. Musically they lowered their standards - what might have been júst a few yaers earlier a sign of total unprofessionalism, was now almost a value of its own. They were allowed to play like they once did before their professional years. Just by intuition and "see whst happens" attitude, and "let's edit it later if something worthwile is there". The songs were to be born out of endless jam sessions, very much together with the birth of the "ancient art of weaving". Million meters of tape. The result was, of course, SOME GIRLS that was mostly based on these two-three chord one-track mind rockers that were played with a new approach. The Stones actually have had difficulties in the recent years how to perfect their ever-important constitutive central-section - the chuckeberry-based rockers (who would have not after EXILE?) With GOATS HEAD SOAP they tried to find new, more melodic directions, and "Star Star" is almost a joke of the old formula, the rockers of IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL sound uninspired and forced, "Hand of Fate" and "Crazy Mama" took the more dark, bluesy groove and the band sounds like elder statemen of rock: "been there, done that".
But as I see it, the punk offered a licence to play young man's music again. Jagger took the bite or a chance, and it didn't much to convince Keith "yaeh, you can play Chuck Berry riffs now as much as you can if we a bit revise them", and Woodie was there to assist. It was no dark anyomre - no black and blue - but fun and jokes. All a tongue-in-cheek. Jagger sounded very inspired, and SOME GIRLS might be his greatest effort ever as a song writer ever, especially in lyrics section. (The simple fast rockers a'la "Respectable" and "Whip" and "Lies" or more bluesy "Some Girls" or rauncy "Shattered") might give the album its feel but what makes it an awesome album is the fact having some outstanding songs in it: "Miss You", "Faraway Eyes", "Beast of BUrden", "Before They Make Me Run". It looks like in the midde of those endless jams and "faster faster faster!" commands, the guys found their creative muse to come up with gems like that.)
Anyways, the Pathe Marconi sessions produced a new sound of the band, and it looks like it diverses the opinions quite a lot in this board. I love it, but I can understand why some people view it as "thin" or "flat" or "immediate". I also sometimes feel that maybe the direction they took then was a bit "cheap", even though it perhaps saved their career. This is especially true when I listen the 'mature' or 'sophisticated' sounds of BLACK AND BLUE. But then I put SOME GIRLS, or HANDSOME GIRLS, get myself a drink, and reflect "the best Stones yet"...
- Doxa
Quote
DoxaQuote
71Tele
I don't think it has a single song with the emotional depth of "100 Years", "Winter" or "Coming Down Again" from GHS, so I can't see how it's better than that one.
I beg to disagree here. I think "Hand of Fate" has as much emotional depth as those GHS ballads but it is expressed in different way, using a rocker as a vehicle. The story it tells is whatever western romantics but that's not the point; it is the expression that matters; Keith's down to earth, a bit lazy rhythm work sets the tone from the first sec, and the band over-all sounds relaxed and even contemplative, while Jagger's broken interpretation ices the cake. The song sets certain kind of mood that I find very unique in Stones repertuare. Even with faster "Crazy Mama" has this a bit odd feeling and mood in it. I also find the ballads "Memoery Motel" and "Fool to Cry" as emotionally deep as GHS ballads even though they are not probably so musically rich and lyrical as them. But for example, I think Mick and Keith's duet in "Memory Motel" is one of the finest ever as far the power of experession goes, especially Keith's "She's got a mind of her own" part nails me always when I listen to it. Like I said in my earlier post is the maturity - a rare quality, right? - that sets the GHS and B&B to the category of their own in Stones catalog.
It is no wonder that the richness of TATTOO YOU is very much to do with transporting the reflective songs from GHS and B&B sessions into it. That gives the depth TY has in its famous B-side.
- Doxa
Quote
kleermaker
I still have to read Doxa's 'analysis' or 'review'. I will have to take a deep breath because it's a bit lengthy and I'm an impatient kind of guy.
But as for joy and fun in music: I HATE that. 'Funny' or humorous or cheerful music is fun for at most a couple of month and then I never listen to it again. That's simply not good music per se. It's the absolute antithesis of blues etc. Not my cup of tea in a million years. It simply should be forbidden to be written/composed and certainly to be played. Fun music, it's a synonym for contradictio in terminis. Horrific.
Quote
71TeleQuote
kleermaker
I still have to read Doxa's 'analysis' or 'review'. I will have to take a deep breath because it's a bit lengthy and I'm an impatient kind of guy.
But as for joy and fun in music: I HATE that. 'Funny' or humorous or cheerful music is fun for at most a couple of month and then I never listen to it again. That's simply not good music per se. It's the absolute antithesis of blues etc. Not my cup of tea in a million years. It simply should be forbidden to be written/composed and certainly to be played. Fun music, it's a synonym for contradictio in terminis. Horrific.
Well, that's certainly an interesting viewpoint, and explains your antipathy to Some Girls. Do you also accept only dark colors in painting?
Quote
kleermakerQuote
71TeleQuote
kleermaker
I still have to read Doxa's 'analysis' or 'review'. I will have to take a deep breath because it's a bit lengthy and I'm an impatient kind of guy.
But as for joy and fun in music: I HATE that. 'Funny' or humorous or cheerful music is fun for at most a couple of month and then I never listen to it again. That's simply not good music per se. It's the absolute antithesis of blues etc. Not my cup of tea in a million years. It simply should be forbidden to be written/composed and certainly to be played. Fun music, it's a synonym for contradictio in terminis. Horrific.
Well, that's certainly an interesting viewpoint, and explains your antipathy to Some Girls. Do you also accept only dark colors in painting?
Tele, it wouldn't be wise to answer that question because it answers itself. But I hate funny and cheerful paintings as well, just like I hate such 'literature' or movies or theatre etc. Art is per se not funny and cheerful. And certainly not one dimensional (thus flat), fresh, immediate etc., exactly all the qualifications one can ascribe to SG.
Quote
71TeleQuote
kleermakerQuote
71TeleQuote
kleermaker
I still have to read Doxa's 'analysis' or 'review'. I will have to take a deep breath because it's a bit lengthy and I'm an impatient kind of guy.
But as for joy and fun in music: I HATE that. 'Funny' or humorous or cheerful music is fun for at most a couple of month and then I never listen to it again. That's simply not good music per se. It's the absolute antithesis of blues etc. Not my cup of tea in a million years. It simply should be forbidden to be written/composed and certainly to be played. Fun music, it's a synonym for contradictio in terminis. Horrific.
Well, that's certainly an interesting viewpoint, and explains your antipathy to Some Girls. Do you also accept only dark colors in painting?
Tele, it wouldn't be wise to answer that question because it answers itself. But I hate funny and cheerful paintings as well, just like I hate such 'literature' or movies or theatre etc. Art is per se not funny and cheerful. And certainly not one dimensional (thus flat), fresh, immediate etc., exactly all the qualifications one can ascribe to SG.
"Art" should reflect life. And sometimes life is fun and cheerful. I tend to side with you most of the time but sometimes we have to lighten up.
Quote
71Tele
Take off "Melody" and perhaps "Cherry", add "Worried About You" and "Slave" and you would have had close to a classic Stones album - or at least a stronger one.